News of Interest.TV
Environment

A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues

Section Directory:  The Politics of Global Warming

updated December 30, 2013

Most people are glad to help make the world a healthier place. They like to know that their actions are improving the Earth and its living inhabitants rather than degrading it and are willing to make sacrifices in order to help this come about.

 United Nations Headquarters, New York.
United Nations Headquarters, New York.
Powerful political elite individuals understand people's desires for a healthy environment and try to further such desires in the populace, but unfortunately it is often due to ulterior motives rather than for actually fixing environmental problems.

This section directory contains articles examining treaties and legislation associated with climate change such as the Kyoto Protocol, ”Cap and Trade” legislation, and the 2009 ”Framework Convention on Climate Change.” It is shown that such treaties and legislation mostly serve to further long-range objectives of global elite individuals and organizations such as the United Nations, while actually having little to do with helping the environment.

The fact that global warming is potentially a ”global problem” is a key aspect making the issue appealing to be exploited by global political elites for furthering their objectives— such as incrementally dissolving the individual sovereignty of nations while creating a world system of private financial control which is in the hands of those few ruling elite. Much evidence shows globalist objectives of their eventually ruling and controlling the world's populace through a type of a totalitarian ”post-industrial feudal system.”

Another section directory of this summary article, An Examination of the Effects of a Warming Climate, examines each of the major claims about the potential detrimental effects related to global warming, including melting ice and sea level issues, storm intensity issues, and the potential of the spread of disease, human deaths, and plant and animal species extinction. The findings may surprise you, as most commonly assumed effects of climate change are shown to be often extremely exaggerated and in many cases completely false.

This page is a part of the summary article A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues.












John Stossel Discusses Distortions in the Global Warming Debate

  view individual page  |   view in popup windowRunning Time: 8 minutes, 7 seconds  

A video segment created by the journalist John Stossel for the ABC Television show ”20/20” examines issues concerning global warming, showing how issues are often extremely exaggerated by politicians and the media.

Following is a description of the video clip:

A group of children are interviewed and asked what they think about global warming, and they explain that they and their parents are very frightened due to being shown the Al Gore video ”An Inconvenient Truth” along with continually receiving other information which claims an imminent climate catastrophe.

It is explained how despite many extreme claims being made in the media about global warming, that ”the debate is certainly not over” despite attempts being made to claim otherwise.

Al Gore’s movie ”An Inconvenient Truth” is discussed, explaining that despite the film winning an Academy Award and Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the film is loaded with misinformation about the causes and effects of global warming, including making extremely inaccurate claims about potential sea level rise and danger to polar bears. Stossel mentions that he wanted to interview Gore about discrepancies in the video, but Gore would not agree to being interviewed.

Well known scientists John Christy, Roy Spencer, and Paul Reiter are interviewed, explaining how the debate is not over and how the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often relies on deceptive practices for making global warming seem to be a bigger problem than it actually is. It is also explained that scientists who speak out about misleading claims being made about global warming are often ostracized as being ”deniers” and accused of appeasing corrupt interests.









Alex Jones Discusses Issues with the Copenhagen Convention on Climate Change Treaty, December 8, 2009


View audio page  >>
 
View audio page >>
recorded December 8, 2009, running time 17 minutes 30 seconds

open in popup window   |   listen with media player
Radio host Alex Jones speaks about issues with the 2009 Copenhagen Convention on Climate Change Treaty, explaining that the Treaty’s purpose is to deceptively empower an unelected global government which is controlled by private banks. It is explained that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have been exploiting third world countries in the past and will continue their exploitation under the new treaties despite those countries being promised otherwise. Also discussed are common examples of propaganda which help to explain attitudes in the scientific community as well as how environmental issues are being used to forward ulterior motives.


It is explained how a Danish policy document has been leaked which shows that promises made to third world nations are being planned to be drastically scaled back in favor of distributing more power to wealthier nations. Also, despite the international banks having so far taken $23.7 Trillion from the United States, and $50 Trillion worldwide, the real goal of the banks is to build authority and power through a world government as detailed in many documents in the past.

Alex Jones speaks about how plans for a world government being set up are similar to ”the opposite of the Declaration of Independence,” due to the fact that the founders of the ”global tyranny” are unelected and dictatorial in nature. Also mentioned is how globalist organizations and individuals have denied having strategies of founding global government in the past while they have been in the process of setting it up behind the scenes.

The writer and politician Gore Vidal had done an interview for Playboy magazine in the past calling for forced population reduction, one child policies and a ”global authority,” similar to strategies called for in a book written by Obama Science Czar John Holder in the 1970’s entitled Ecoscience.

Excerpts from a ”propaganda piece” from a TED conference is played, and it is explained that most individuals involved in such conferences do actually believe that global warming is a pressing problem that should be dealt with using the legislation and treaties that are being proposed. It is described how many scientists involved in studying global warming issues are selected due to their willingness to ”play along” with deceptive strategies, and many who actually do understand that they are taking part in deception are led to believe that they are doing so for a ”good cause.”

Another propaganda piece is played which claims that license plate tracking camera systems are being implemented in order to alleviate traffic congestion which is to help the environment, and it is explained that the systems are actually being developed to track and trace individuals on highways. In the United States all of the major highways are being planned to be converted into toll roads which will have revenue be paid to a private Spanish Company ”Centra” under the NAFTA Superhighway system. (Also see Endgame Part 2 - How the Bilderberg Group is Secretly Merging the North American Continent, and Refutation of Claims of the Trans-Texas Corridor Project Being Cancelled.)










Opening Ceremony Film from the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

  view individual page  |   view in popup windowRunning Time: 4 minutes, 13 seconds  

This new opening film for the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference is a common example of the mentality which is used to sell the idea of climate change being imminently catastrophic, despite proven facts showing the contrary.

Powerful and corrupt globalist organizations are growing increasingly desperate to quickly pass deceptive legislation which depends on support based on people’s perception of a world-wide threat, because the actual proven truths about global warming issues are quickly becoming more well-known.

See the article A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues for a detailed examination of issues associated with climate change, including issues concerning the politics, science, and actual proven effects of global warming.


From the YouTube page:

”Please Help the World”, film from the opening ceremony of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Shown on December 7, 2009 at COP15.

"Director: Mikkel Blaabjerg Poulsen, producers: Stefan Fjeldmark and Marie Peuliche, cinematographer: Dan Laustsen, production designer: Peter de Neergaard, editor: Morten Giese, composer: Davide Rossi, sound design: Carl Plesner, production company: Zentropa RamBuk, advisory consultants: Mogens Holbøll, Bysted A/S and Christian Søndergaard, Attention Film ApS."










Motives of the Globalist Establishment - from 'Global Warming or Global Governance?'

  view individual page  |   view in popup windowRunning Time: 26 minutes 48 seconds  

This compilation of video clips from the documentary video "Global Warming or Global Governance?" discusses why many scientists, journalists, and politicians of the political establishment have an agenda of perpetuating the idea of current global warming being extreme and caused by man's activities, despite much surprising evidence to the contrary— largely due to common ulterior motives of offering solutions which actually impose deceptive and dangerous globalist agendas.

Currently over $4 billion is being spent annually on global warming research, and the issue has turned into a cottage industry with a large cadre of scientists on "soft money"— meanting they would often cease to recieve funding if they do not somehow show a global warming connection to carbon dioxide emissions through their research.

Scientists who deny man caused warming are frequently accused of taking money from the energy industry, but very often the opposite is true. Many energy companies exert heavy political pressure for allocating increasingly large amounts of money to the global warming issue and for passing economically damaging legislation, and often such companies individually receive billions of dollars from that legislation.

Global warming issues are being used by powerful political organizations to help form a centralized world government, by setting precedents for international control and regulation which are shown to actually have little or nothing to do with global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol. The video clip shows many examples of political elites having deceptive agendas of dissolving the sovereignty of nations including the United States, through setting up treaties which erode personal freedoms, national security, and land ownership among many other rights.

The media and political groups such as the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) commonly distort issues concerning global warming by continually stating that it is a "settled science" and there is no longer any reason to debate, even though it is shown that a large proportion of climate scientists are doubtful of man's role in global warming and do not believe that the science is sound enough for formulating policy decisions.

Most in the government and media get the wrong impression from reading the "Summaries for Policy Makers" put out by the IPCC. Dr. Vincent Gray, an Expert IPCC Reviewer and Climate Consultant in New Zealand says "This 'Summary for Policy Makers' isn't a summary for policy makers at all, it is a summary 'by' policy makers— in other words, it is a summary that is agreed line by line, by government representatives. The IPCC is a political organization, set up by the United Nations, to provide evidence to support the framework convention on climate change which has been signed by governments, it is entirely political."

Also shown is a CNN broadcast by Chris Horner explaining how the IPCC reports are controlled by bureaucrats, policy makers, and pressure group lobbyists who modify the findings of contributing scientists to conform to pre-specified summaries which are established months before the underlying work is actually even written.

Discussed are United Nations global conferences which pose to be democratic conventions of representatives of over 100 nations who come together to vote for plans they all agree on. However it is shown that the policies are written ahead of time and the delegates are manipulated to produce what is called 'consensus,' which is never submitted to Congress. For example, the consensus process at a recent United Nations meeting about global warming was so firmly planted that at the opening day of the conference that there was consensus already formed, without suitable opportunity for debate. Essentially the agenda had been set beforehand and delegates come to the table to find what their working orders are.

Michael Coffman explains why the Koyoto protocol has nothing to do with actually reducing the carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere. Nations such as China and Russia would not be bound by the treaty and could continue to expand and pollute forever, and in fact China will overtake the emissions of carbon dioxide by the United States within two years. In actually, it is a massive income redistribution plan to shift money to third world nations as well as making them subservient, and it will not help global warming whatsoever.

Carroll Quigley's book "Tragedy and Hope" which was published in 1975 explains many of the long-term agendas of the Globalists, including "...the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. (p 324)." These private groups, meetings and conferences still exist today under a cloud of secrecy, such as with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and many others.

The phrase "New World Order" raised many red flags of concern and was dropped almost as soon as President Bush mentioned it during the first Gulf War. Soon afterwards, The Commission on Global Governance was formed in association with the United Nations, and in the report "Our Global Neighborhood" published in 1995, it laid out a list of justification and implementation goals needed to implement global governance, and it reported that issues concerning the environment are key to formulating global governance. On page 208 it states that "Considerable strides have been made in creating a system of international environmental governance to achieve global sustainable development through the management of cross-border environmental disputes and protection of the global commons." On page 213 it states "A carbon tax... would no doubt be a valuable step forward...towards a radically different system— one that taxes the resource use rather than employment (through payroll taxes) and savings. This would recognize the need to discourage excessive consumption and would stimulate employment as part of a strategy of sustainable development." This strategy is used in Al Gore's proposed plans for implementing carbon taxes.

Al Gore is interested in the use of "cap and trade schemes" which are to be implemented through a system he helped to create while being Vice President which involves "public-private partnerships"— which shift decision making from the electorate and elected officials to a non-accountable partnership of non-governmental organizations, government bureaucracies, and multinational corporations at the international, national, and local levels. Since these organizations are not elected and not accountable to the electorate, they are free to impose their will on the people. All of this is driven by often deliberately fabricated needs of "sustainable development," such as the Kyoto Protocol which would allow control over our economy by international bureaucracies that will impose carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes exactly as the Commission on Global Governance and Al Gore propose. These partnerships create a neo-facist relationship between governments and corporations which create monopolies. Once this process is fully in place there will no longer be free market enterprise, but rather total economic control by corporations and political elites. It is a configuration predicted by Carroll Quigley in his book "Tragedy and Hope," and is a defining factor of what is meant by the term "Global Governance" and "The New World Order."

A CNN Lou Dobbs news report is shown explaining how corporate fascism is spreading throughout the North American continent, and how profits of corporations have increased 45% while wages of American workers has risen only 3% in the same time. Also explained is how the decision making processes are shifted to dangerously configured and unaccountable corporations rather than through the electorate and elected officials.

A more recent George Bush plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions has "improvements" over the Kyoto Protocol, however it still establishes a huge international bureaucracy which is not accountable to the United States and the world. United Nations documents make is very clear that they want to set up a regulatory structure that would affect every man, woman, and child on planet Earth, and all of the control would be headquartered in the United Nations.










Issues with Scientists, Politicians, and the Media

  view individual page  |   view in popup windowRunning Time: 28 minutes 33 seconds  

This compilation of video clips from the film ”The Great Global Warming Swindle” discusses various reasons why many scientists, journalists, and political organizations such as the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) have a vested interest in distorting information related to global warming issues.

Many scientists depend on a perception of a danger from the effects of global warming in order to receive funding for their research, political organizations use it to push agendas which are often not even related to the environment, and media outlets often hype inaccurate scientific reports to appease powerful political elites who have an increasing control over corporate media.


Following is a written description and partial transcripts of the information in this video clip.

After a brief introductory segment, it is explained how in 2005 a House of Lords Inquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made global warming. A leading figure in that inquiry was Lord Lawson of Blaby who was the first politician to commit government money to global warming research in the 1980s. Lawson explains, ”We had a very very thorough inquiry— took evidence from a whole lot of experts in this area and produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact, there are more and more thoughtful people, some who are a little frightened to come out in the open but who quietly and privately, and some of them publicly are saying, ‘hang on, wait a minute .. this simply doesn’t add up.’”

It is shown how in 1974, the BBC aired a show warning of impending global cooling and a potential coming ice age, and it is explained how scientists who felt that the atmosphere might be warmed by the addition of Carbon Dioxide were ridiculed. Then as temperatures started to rise again during the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher had an agenda for moving away from coal power and toward nuclear power, so she offered governmental financial assistance to scientists who would show a correlation between increased CO2 due to man’s activities and global warming. She also initially set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). From the outset, the IPCC stressed the significance of man-made CO2 for the changes in the temperature of the climate and disregarded much of the previous climate science including the role of the sun which had been the subject of a major meeting at the royal society only a few months earlier.

Activists often find the subject of man-made global warming to be an important issue to protest as CO2 is a major byproduct of industrialism. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, explains that the environmental movement was quick to embrace the issue of global warming because the public was increasingly becoming aware and agreeing with other environmental issues, which tended to move many in the environmentalist movement to find more extreme and anti-establishment positions. He also explains that as Communism fell in the Soviet Union, activists from other areas moved into the environmentalist movement and brought with them anti-capitalism and anti-globalization agendas which many linked with CO2 being the byproduct of industrialism. [ Note— Although environmentalists are often led to believe that it is ”anti-globalist” or ”anti-capitalist” to have views to opposing man-made global warming, it is actually shown that global warming issues are being exploited for imposing dangerous and deceptive globalist agendas. See Motives of the Globalist Establishment - from 'Global Warming or Global Governance?', and Behind the Big News: Infiltration of the Anti-WTO Movement. ]

By the early 1990s, global warming was a full-blown political campaign which was attracting media attention, and as a result more government funding. Prior to George Bush Sr.’s Presidency, the budget for climate science was around $170 million a year, and eventually it jumped to $2 billion a year, which brought many jobs and new people into the area of science who often otherwise would not be interested in the subject, says Professor Richard Lindzen. A number of scientists are shown explaining how many are frequently pressured into biasing their research toward global warming in order to receive funding from grant applications.

The media often attempts to over-dramatisize issues concerning man-made global warming, because it makes for interesting news. A new generation of reporters known as "environmental journalists" frequently have an obligation to report on issues which reinforce the theories of man-made global warming or else risk loosing their job. Also many newspaper editors frequently are looking for increasingly sensational news stories about global warming, even though many experts show that the current warming is a part of a natural cycle which has been happening for the entire history of the Earth.

The IPCC frequently makes false claims concerning greenhouse warming, such as claims that the continued warming of the climate will lead to the spread of Malaria to regions of the world where it currently does not exist. This claim is rebuffed by Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who is one of the world’s leading experts in Malaria and other insect-borne diseases, and he explains how research of contributing scientists is often distorted to fit the agendas of the IPCC to be subsequently published. Mr. Reiter also explains that when he resigned from the IPCC due to issues of his work being distorted, his name remained on the final draft of the report along with others, and he had to threaten legal action in order to get his name removed. He also explains that others have reservations about being on the list of 2,500 of those who support the theory of man made global warming as well, but many have been included in the list anyway.

Research into Global Warming is now one of the best funded areas of science. The US Government alone now spends more than $4 Billion a year. According to NASA climatologist Roy Spencer, scientists who are skeptical and speak out against global warming have a lot to loose as they are frequently not funded. Other scientists claim that having the view that global warming is not caused by man are frequently accused of taking money from interests such as the energy industry, while the opposite is actually more often true.

Narrator: ”There is now a powerful institutional momentum behind the idea of man made global warming. Here in Nairobi, dedicated civil servants, professional NGO campaigners, carbon offset fund manager, environmental journalists and others have gathered for a ten day conference sponsored by the UN to discuss climate change. The number of delegates exceeds 6,000.

Professor John Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville: ”The billions of dollars invested in climate science means there is a huge constituency of people dependent upon those dollars. And they will want to see that carry forward. Happens in any bureaucracy. ”

Lord Lawson of Blaby: ”Anybody who then stands up and says ‘Hey wait a minute, let’s look at this cooly and rationally and carefully and see how much this stands up’— they will be ostracized.”

Patrick Moore: ”The environmental movement really is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level, and every politician is aware of that today. Wether you are on the left, the middle or the right, you have to pay homage to the environment.”

The United States government, once a bastion of resistance, has succumbed— George Bush is now an Ally. Western Governments have now embraced the need for international agreements to restrain industrial production in the developed and the developing world. But at what cost? Paul Driessen is an environmental campaigner: ”My biggest concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.”

Some activists believe that it is best to be on the ”safe side” of the global warming issue no matter what the reality may be, and to follow strategies for cutting carbon dioxide emissions anyway using a ”precautionary principle.” However many of these strategies are designed with ulterior motives and can even have dangerous implications if implemented, especially in the developing world.

Paul Driessen, Author, ”Eco-Imperialism; Green Power, Black Death”— ”The ‘precautionary principle’ is a very interesting beast, it it basically used to promote a particular agenda or ideology, it is always used in one direction only- it talks about the risks of using a particular technology— fossil fuels, for example, but never the risks of not using it. It never talks about the benefits of having that technology.”

As examples shown, many people in developing nations would benefit from the use of fossil fuels as those in western countries do, however many are limited from doing so under proposed legislation which reinforces populations using unhealthy practices such as relying on cooking methods which create deadly indoor smoke.

Despite Africa having coal and oil reserves, environmental groups are campaigning against the use of these sources of energy in favor unreliable solar and wind power.

James Shikwati, Economist & Author, ”If you were to ask a rural person to define Development, they’ll tell you, yes, I’ll know I’ve moved to the next level, when I have electricity. Actually not having electricity creates such a long chain of problems, because the first thing you miss is the light. So you get that they have to go to sleep earlier, because there’s no light. There’s no reason to stay awake. I mean, you can’t talk to each other in darkness.”

Narrator: ”No refrigeration or modern packaging means that food cannot be kept. The fire in the hut is too smoky and consumes too much wood to be used as heating. There is no hot water. We in the West cannot begin to imagine how hard life is without electricity. The life expectancy of people who live like this is terrifyingly short, their existence impoverished in every way.”

James Shikwati, ”The question would be how many people in Europe, how many people in United States are already using that kind of energy ? And how cheap is it ? You see, if it’s expensive for the Europeans, if it’s expensive for the Americans, and we are talking about poor Africans, you know, it doesn’t make sense. The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.”

James Shikwati, ”The challenge we have when we meet Western environmentalists who say we must engage in the use of solar panels and Wind Energy, is how we can have Africa industrialized. Because I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry. How a solar panel, you know, is going to power some railway train network. It might work maybe to power a small transistor radio.”

Narrator: ”The theory of Man-Made Global Warming is now so firmly entrenched, the voices of opposition so effectively silenced, it seems invincible, untroubled by any contrary evidence, no matter how strong. The Global Warming alarm is now beyond reason.”

Dr Frederick Singer, ”There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world, particularly when you have for example the Chief Scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the Century the only habitable place on the Earth will be the Antarctic. And Humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious. It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren’t so sad.”










Issues With the Kyoto Protocol (Book Excerpts: ”Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years”)


View full article page >>
updated November 18, 2009

These excerpts from the book ”Unstoppable Global Warming— Every 1,500 Years” explain specific aspects of the Kyoto Protocol, which is an international treaty intended to reduce the CO2 emissions of first world countries by the year 2012. If implemented, the treaty would at least double energy costs and more likely triple the costs through it being used as an excuse for placing an exorbitant tax on energy. It would create jobs, but only by replacing already existing technologies that are currently very adequate— similar to breaking windows in order to create the labor of replacing them. Also, even supporters of the treaty admit that it would most likely only reduce temperatures by relatively insignificant 0.05 degrees C by 2050.


According to the greenhouse theory, the way to stop future catastrophic warming is to reduce human CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is the international treaty intended to be the ”first step” toward making the required reductions. But even the Kyoto Protocol--which would require the world’s developed countries (but not developing countries) to reduce their emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012, would be enormously expensive.

The Kyoto Protocol would probably double First World energy costs before 2012, and might quadruple them after that year. Kyoto would thus impair or even cancel out the enormous beneficial effects of technology in people’s lives.

The myths of ”free” wind and solar power continue to fascinate journalists and activists. Kyoto proponents assert that ”renewable” energy sources will not only be adequate for the needs of modern society, but the shift from fossil fuels to solar and wind would create jobs. This is like claiming that we can become richer by breaking all of our windows and hiring people to repair them. Repairing the windows ”creates jobs,” but it only gets our standards of living back to where they were before we broke the windows. The labor needed to repair them would be a waste. A shift to renewable fuels would certainly create jobs, but it would also require time and talents that could have been used to produce additional well-being.

According to Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, ”The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more, UNICEF estimates that just $70-$80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.” (462) John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, also observes:

”Early in my career, I served as a missionary in Africa. I lived upcountry with people who did not have access to useful energy. ... I watched as women walked in the early morning to the forest edge, often several miles away, to chop wet green wood for fuel. ... They became beasts of burden as they carried the wood on their backs to the return trip home. ... Burning wood and dung inside the homes for cooking and heat created a dangerously polluted indoor atmosphere for the family. I always thought that if each home could be fitted with an electric light bulb and a microwave oven electrified by a coal-fired power plant, several good things would happen. The woman would be freed to work on other, more productive pursuits. The indoor air would be much cleaner so health would improve. Food could be prepared more safely. There would be light for reading and advancement. Information through television or radio would be received. And the forest with its beautiful ecosystem could be saved.” (463)




ORIGIN OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Kyoto Protocol was produced by a global warming alliance between nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the appointed functionaries of the United Nations. Neither group was elected to anything nor did either group control any people or territory. They nevertheless used the generally favorable public attitudes toward environmental conservation to demand what they called an ”insurance policy for the planet” against man-made overheating from CO2.

The power of NGOs in the global warming debate is often overlooked in the U.S., though not in Europe. The Climate Action Network Europe is a network of more than 365 NGOs funded by the European Commission and the Dutch and Belgian Governments .(464) The U.S. Climate Action Network consists of more than 40 NGOs with ”highly professional staffs with well-developed climate and energy programs, setting the stage for their heavy involvement in climate and energy policies ... within the U.N.” (465)

The NGOs used their new computers and nacent Internet to organize one of the most impressive volunteer efforts in modern times. Nearly 20,000 environmental activists went to Brazil to 1992 for the UN-assisted ”Earth Summit.” When that depth of interest became evident, governments rushed to announce their official delagates. More than 170 governments were represented, a startling 108 by their heads of state.

Most of the hordes of activists actually attended a parallel ”cheerleaders” conference called the Nongovernmental Organization Forum, which was held nearby. However, 2,400 activists were official delegates to the summit itself. They were highly organized and constantly referred to the huge numbers of their colleagues meeting across town and waiting for ”action on behalf of the planet.”

Politicians naturally saw the world’s hundreds of thousands of earnest and energetic environmental activists as a movement to be co-opted. European politicians were especially eager, since the Green parties there were often key parts of their fragile governing coalitions, or soon likely to be. They wanted something to give the Green that wouldn’t cost money before the next election.

What the Greens wanted was to end or severely restrict the use of fossil fuels. This was the era in which biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote scathingly that global problem was ”too many rich people.” (466) The activists movement saw rich people as the ones using too many resources. They saw saw cheap energy as the root cause of the technological abundance underlying the ”throw-away society.” In its turn, cheap energy produced too many rich people and enticed poor people with the idea that they could get rich, too.

The Greens wanted solar and wind energy to be appreciated, never mind that as energy sources they were expensive and erratic. They believed high-yield farming was causing overpopulation by feeding too many people--and high yield farming depended on industrial nitrogen fertilizer, which is produced with the use of fossil fuels. They ardently demanded only organic farming, with half the yield per acre and radically less capacity to support population growth.

There was no real evidence that fossil fuels were overheating the world, then or now. Theory says that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will trap more heat, but no one knows whether the amounts of heat trapped by CO2 increases are significant. Nothing in Earth’s climate history confirms CO2 is a strong driver of climate warming.

It was certainly true, however, that nothing would disarm modern technologies quite so completely as depriving the First World of energy. Heating for the winter, cooling for the summer; private automobiles, mass transportation by air and rail, manufacturing in First World countries would all have to be cut by 80 percent . Without fuel to run the factories, there would be no industrial plant food; without fertilizer, millions of humans might starve, even as more forests were cleared for the low-yeild crops produced by ”organic” means.

The United Nations, for its part, saw the greenhouse theory as a way to expand its influence and power. The greenhouse theory demanded that energy be scarce, and the agency that rationed energy would be powerful indeed.



WHAT THE KOYOTO PROTOCOL WOULD DO

The Kyoto Protocal is an international agreement ostensibly intended to limit the use of fossil-based energy by requiring developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The protocol amends the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), a treaty concluded at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. Article 2 of the FCC states that its ultimate objective is to ”achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Nowhere, in either the FCC or in the Kyoto Protocol, is there any statement of what greenhouse gas levels might be ”dangerous” to either humans or the environment. Or how.

The Kyoto protocol was negotiated by the Clinton administration in 1997, much of it personally by Vice President Al Gore in preparation for his unsuccessful run for the U.S. presidency in 2000. However, the Clinton-Gore administration never dared to bring the treaty to a Senate vote.

The U.S. Senate had already passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution on 21 July 1997 during the run up to the UN’s Kyoto meeting--voting 95 0 against any such treaty. The resolution said that any climate treaty that did not include developing countries was ”inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed.” The Senate resolution also pointed out that if such a treaty left out Third World countries, then ”The level of required reductions would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof.”

The completed Kyoto Protocol confirmed the fears of the U.S. Senate. It did not include the big developing countries and it did propose to put the full burden of emission reductions on the United States and other First World countries. The reason was simple. The Third World was much more afraid of being left in poverty than it was of largely benign climate trend revealed by the First World’s thermometers. If Kyoto had required the signatures of China and India, it would never have been concluded. The UN’s ”evidence” for human-induced warming was essentially limited to repeating the mantra the ”the Earth has warmed 0.6 degrees C in the last century,” reciting the greenhouse theory, and offering printouts from complex but unverified computer models.


SUPPORT FOR THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Kyoto Protocol was particularly attractive to European governments that have taxed energy heavily for decades. A barrel of oil that nets the Saudi oil industry $35 may yield the British government $150 in taxes--with the taxes sanctified to ”save the planet.” For competitive reasons, Europe wanted to see the United States and its job-creating economy saddled with the same high energy costs that European employers and drivers already paid.

The first stage of the Kyoto Protocol called for its members to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels. This would have only an undetectable impact on any global warming caused by human-generated CO2. Even supporters of Kyoto admit that it would reduce calculated temperatures by a non-detectable 0.05 degrees C by 2050. (467)

The reason environmental groups were excited about the Kyoto Protocol was the second, severe phase of the treaty which was supposed to take effect in 2012 and impose much tighter constraints on greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 stated that global fossil fuel use would have to be reduced by 60 80 percent to stabilize CO2 levels. (468) However, the second phase of greenhouse gas reductions was never negotiated.

The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent (not 5.2 percent) from 1990 levels. Dr. Harlan Watson, the senior U.S. negotiator at the 2004 Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Buenos Aires, reported that the United States is likely to emit about 16 percent more greenhouse gasses in 2010 than it did in 1990. In order to meet the Kyoto targets, the U.S. would thus have to cut its projected emissions by 23 percent. Since fossil fuels still provide about 85 percent of American energy, the United States would have to cut its energy use by nearly one-fourth unless it could somehow rapidly and radically increase supplies of nuclear, wind, and solar power.

The second phase of Kyoto, if all protocol member nations were required to cut fossil fuels by 60 percent from 1990 levels, America would probably be required to eliminate virtually all fossil fuel use while poor countries expanded their use.


THE HIGH COST OF REDUCING EMISSIONS

We still do not know how difficult it will be to cut back fossil fuel use in the real world. Few Kyoto member nations have actually attempted to cut their real-world greenhouse gas emissions. The choice of 1990 as the base year gave major advantages to Britain, Germany, and Russia. Britain had shut down its antique coal mines and shifted heavily to cleaner North Sea natural gas. Germany got Kyoto credit for shutting down the dirty industries built by East Germany’s communist government. Russia got most of its credits for eliminating the former Soviet Union’s heavily polluting factories.

Yale University economist William Nordhaus has estimated that first-phase Kyoto emissions reductions would cost $716 billion, and that the U.S. would bear two-thirds of the global costs. (474) This may be as good a guess as anyone’s. No one has even tried to estimate the cost of fully stabilizing human-generated CO2 emissions without some major technical breakthrough.

Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol have come up with estimates of some enormous costs that will supposedly be inflicted on the planet if we do not stop global warming. However, these cost estimates share some serious flaws:

First, the estimates have all been based on radical warming. Little has been said about the economic impact of a 2 degree C per-century warming because it is not likely to inflict major costs and should even produce net benefits.

Second, the estimates of global warming costs have been inflated in many of these estimates by assumptions of ”global warming impacts” that we have shown to be extremely unlikely or impossible: radical increases in sea levels even though the world has little ice left that can melt rapidly in a moderate warming; higher rates of malaria and other tropical diseases which could be prevented by pesticides, window screens, and other readily-available technologies; assumed crop losses in the tropics that might not occur, and which, in any case, would be outweighed by very large crop yield gains in the big northern cropping regions of Russia and Canada.

Third, the warming alarmists ignore some of the known economic benefits of warming, such as increased crop and forest yields proven to be stimulated by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and lower death rates and reduced need for medical care in a warmer climate.

The huge estimates of global warming costs, in fact, ignore history. Records left by the Romans, Chinese, and medieval Europeans all tell us that the last two warming phases of the 1,500-year cycle were prosperous times for humanity. The Roman Empire and the Chinese empire both thrived during the Roman Warming 2,000 years ago. The prosperity of the Medieval Warming is apparent to us today when we view the beautiful castles and cathedrals of Europe, which date mainly from that period. How could these have been built if the warmings were accomplished by the flooding, epidemics of malaria, massive famines, and constant storms assumed by gloomy advocates of the greenhouse theory?

Nor do the Kyoto supporters want to look very closely at the costs of giving up fossil fuels. A London economic consulting firm, Lombard Street Research, recently noted that the shift from fossil fuels to whatever low-emission energy systems we adopt would likely cost at least $18 trillion, and perhaps much more. (475) Lombard Street assumed that the shift would take only five years and cost the world half a percentage point of economic growth. It seems obvious that the shift to a totally different energy system is likely to take considerably longer and cost quite a lot more then their admittedly conservative estimate.

Even so, says Charles Dumas, the Lombard Street lead author, the cost of the warming-prevention strategy is much greater than any conceivable benefit. ”This is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of dealing with higher sea levels and freak weather insurance.” (476) If, indeed, a moderate warming will produce significantly higher sea levels and freak weather--assumptions that are subject to serious doubt.

One of the more balanced studies of global warming costs and benefits is The Impact of Climate Change on the U.S. Economy, written by Robert Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry and James Neumann of Industrialized Economics, Inc. Mendelsohn and Neumann assumed that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would produce a temperature rise of 2.5 degrees C and a 7 percent increase in precipitation. They found this would generate large gains in agriculture and smaller gains in timber and recreation. The other economic sectors would suffer small negative impacts. Overall, Mendelsohn and Neumann concluded that the U.S. economy would gain slightly from such a warming--by 0.2 percent of GDP. (477)

This is a sharp contrast to the IPCC’s 1995 report, ”Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,” which assembled five earlier economic studies. Those studies all estimated sizeable global damages from global warming, but the wide range in estimates by sector indicates there was great uncertainty among the IPCC report’s authors. For example, the estimated cost to agriculture ranged from $1.1 billion to $17.5 billion. Estimates of timber losses ranged from $700 million to more than $43 billion--a 60-fold difference.

Mendelsohn and Neumann estimated that agriculture would gain more than $40 billion from longer growing seasons, fewer frosts, more rainfall and increased CO2 fertilization. Agriculture sector studies have indeed shown large gains to farming from global warming. Timber would gain from the same factors. Recreation generally benefits from warmer temperatures. Thus the Mendelsohn-Neumann argument is supported by logic. It also benefits from the authors’ inclusion of adaptation strategies and of actual observations on energy expenditures and leisure activities in towns that have experienced temperature changes.


The book "Unstoppable Global Warming— Every 1,500 Years," by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery may be purchased from Amazon.









A Summary of the Article ”Cap and Trade” Published in The New American Magazine


View full article page >>
 
View full article page >>
October 11, 2009
This article is a summary of points made in the article ”Cap and Trade”, by Ed Hiserodt for ”The New American Magazine,” September 17, 2009. The article discusses issues concerning the 1,400 page ”American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (Resolution 587) which was rushed through the US Congress on June 26, 2009 without adequate time for the bill to be read or for any meaningful debate. The act was passed by a vote of 219-212 and was essentially ignored by the media. The US Senate is now considering the bill.

It is explained how the legislation is meant to give government unprecedented power to control the allocation of energy resources through the use of taxable and tradable ”emission allowances” which are based on the amount of Carbon Dioxide that each business would be calculated to be putting into the atmosphere. The legislation would amount to being an extremely expensive energy tax that would be wastefully applied and having much potential for abuse by political elites.

Following are key points made in the article speaking about the recently passed ”American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”:

- The legislation imposes government established limits on emissions of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses except water vapor for all business entities, despite the fact that many questions exist about man’s contribution of those gasses having a significant effect on the actual warming of the climate— with an example cited being the fact that many computer simulations are now showing that the proposed CO2 reductions would only result in the reduction of temperature rise of less than one degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Also mentioned is the fact that none of the 22 most cited computer climate models were able to accurately predict the extent of the cooling of the atmosphere which has happened during this decade.

- The proposed laws would give big government and politicians unprecedented control over the allocation of energy resources, which would mean that businesses would have to ”contribute” to campaigns of increasingly powerful political bosses in order to survive, and decision making would also be delegated to environmental advocates whose goal is not a vibrant industrial economy but rather drastic reductions of energy consumption rates to pre-1900 levels. Decisions concerning every facet of the personal lives of all citizens would be effected by this legislation, as well as the United State’s foreign relations and international commerce being heavily effected.

- The bill is over 1,428 pages and it is full of confusing and ambiguous language. Also the bill relies on many regulations and codes which are defined elsewhere and difficult for the average citizen to obtain.

- Sections of the legislation define specifically what ”cap and trade” means, referring to how the Federal Government would issue a limited number of tradable ”emission allowances” representing units of greenhouse gasses being emitted for virtually every business. Many of the allowances would initially be given out for free and then progressively limited over time as the value of the allowances and resulting tax revenue generated increases for the government.

- Implementation of ”cap and trade” legislation includes electric utility companies initially receiving 43 percent of the total free allowances in 2012 which would then be progressively reduced to zero by 2030, making the utilities ”fight it out” to get the increasingly scarce and expensive allowances. Also, oil refineries would initially receive only 2 percent of the free allowances— which would make them initially need to dramatically raise their prices out of range of being competitive against petroleum from overseas, thus putting many out of business.

- Potential of abuse by ”traders” and ”brokers” of carbon credits exists, and Al Gore is said to be on the verge of becoming the first ”global warming billionaire,” and also Ken Lay of the Enron scandal was very interested in the idea of ”cap and trade.”

- A snapshot of near future scenarios of the legislation being implemented shows the rise of a huge bureaucracy associated with managing the endless tasks associated with determining and tracking emissions allocations, energy costs skyrocketing due to the new system, the administrator of the EPA having great power in deciding how the carbon credits would be distributed, and even potential problems cropping up which could lead to starvation in poorer countries due to the accumulation and sale of carbon credits associated with the agriculture business.

- For an average American family, the legislation would increase yearly natural gas costs by $519, the yearly bill for coal generated electricity would be $3,800, the cost of gasoline would rise by $1 per gallon, and the prices of consumer products would also rise by a significant amount as well.

- Wind and solar power are widely viewed by many as being ”energy salvation,” however they have many practical limitations in replacing traditional power sources.

- A large proportion of the new ”green” jobs would be created for staffing massive bureaucracies necessary to manage emission allocations used by all American businesses and eventually also households. Also an ”energy police” would monitor the amount of energy use as well as making sure that the energy being used comes from renewable sources.

- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has started to investigate the potential of harm resulting from ”cap and trade” legislation, as has requested that the Environmental Protection Agency hold a hearing proving the legitimacy of evidence for man-made global warming, and the EPA is expected to deny the request. The Chamber of Commerce has created the Alliance for Clear Climate Economics and Science Solutions (ACCESS) which is to ensure that regulation of greenhouse gasses is based on sound science and will not harm the economy.

- The EPA is not being forthcoming with a recent research report showing that CO2 is not the forcing agent for a warming planet, and the researcher Alan Carlin has presented data showing that solar activity and possibly related Pacific decadal oscillations were likely the causes of the rise in global temperatures that started at the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800’s and continuing today.

- In closing, the article mentions that great economic damage could happen to the country after only a few year if the legislation is implemented, explaining that the ramifications of the ”cap and trade” legislation would be far more extreme than the current health care legislation which is currently being opposed by many citizens.









A Summary and Criticism of the ”Framework Convention on Climate Change” Treaty


View audio page  >>
 
View audio page >>
recorded November 2, 2009, running time 40 minutes 30 seconds

open in popup window   |   listen with media player
[Editor's Note, December 11, 2011— This audio broadcast is from 2009. The meeting being spoken about here did not achieve a binding agreement, and since that time the Framework Convention on Climate Change has met in Cancun, Mexico in 2010, and in Durban, South Africa in 2011.]

Hundreds of nations will be meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark during December to potentially ratify the "Framework Convention on Climate Change" Treaty which has been drafted by a Rockefeller Foundation funded body of the United Nations.

Radio host Alex Jones gives an overview of the treaty and reads through sections of the document mentioning aspects of concern during a November 2, 2009 broadcast, detailing issues about the treaty serving to greatly empower a world government which is run by non-elected private bankers. Also mentioned are issues concerning inaccurate propaganda put out by many media outlets concerning global warming, as well as agendas of extreme population reduction which are often associated with global warming legislation.

The broadcast contains much concentrated information which is summarized here in the format of a list of key points.



Specific Aspects of the "Framework Convention on Climate Change Treaty"

— It is explained that organizations which support the Framework Convention on Climate Change Treaty have signed what amounts to a ”declaration of tyranny, corruption and neo-feudal serfdom through economic terrorism against the people of the world” due to deceptive agendas which would be implemented by the treaty, as is described here in the following points.

— Thousands of newspaper editorials have been written this year calling for a world government, such as Secretary General of the United Nations Ban-Ki-Moon writing an editorial published in hundreds of papers entitled ”We Can Do It,” which mentions a need for a global government.

— In an article entitled ”Elites Launch ‘Global Impact Investing Network’” (GIIN), it is explained that private corporations making up the Non-Governemental Organizations (”NGO”s) of the climate agreement will be the only ones who will be allowed to operate and to trade carbon credits. Al Gore is one of the chief owners of one of the five companies, and he has invested in three of the other four. The GIIN is headed by Antony Bugg-Levine, the current director of the Rockefeller Foundation which is one of the chief sponsors of the treaty.

— Rather than creating a debate about the fact that an unelected, unaccountable, private corporate board would be ruling all ”carbon activity” on the planet, the media often claims that there is no plan for a carbon tax or world government, despite the fact that legislation has recently been passed by the US House which is designed to tie into the proposed Copenhagen treaty.

— Under this legislation, there will be a tax on all food, pets, fossil fuels, plastics, and industries in general, and unelected private and government boards will do home inspections. Coal plants will be shut down which will more than double fuel costs, and it is shown that oil companies have been heavily involved in creating the plans despite being portrayed by the media and environmental groups as being against such agendas.

— Documents written by globalist organizations such and the United Nations and the Club of Rome show that the true agenda of such treaties is to shut down industrial capacity of nations in order to form an organized ”eugenics” society which is "bankrupted" in order to shift the populace of the world to a post-industrial feudalistic ”managed economy” type of economic system. (See the following section ”Video Clips from the Documentary Film ‘Endgame’.”)




Video Clips from the Documentary Film "Endgame"

Following are video clips from the Alex Jones documentary film "Endgame", discussing many little known long-term agendas of globalist establishment groups and individuals such as David Rockefeller and the United Nations. Agendas of consolidation of the nations of the world into a "one world government" run by unelected private bankers is explained, as well as the application of agendas of extreme eugenics and world depopulation through the use of highly unethical and even genocidal methods.


Endgame Part 1: An Introduction to Historical Abuses by the Global Elite
This introductory clip from the Alex Jones film ”Endgame” explains how activities of ruling elite individuals have historically been following an agenda of global domination and consolidation. It explains how banking cartels such as the Rothschild family of England have historically been responsible for starting major wars such as Word War I and World War II for the purpose of war profiteering by means of financing both sides of the conflicts.
running time 13 minutes

Endgame Part 2 - How the Bilderberg Group is Secretly Merging the North American Continent
This video clip from the Alex Jones film ”Endgame” explains specifically how the Bilderberg Group has been using stealth for strategically paving the way toward full consolidation of the North American countries, for merging the populations, monetary systems, militaries, and highways of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
running time 23 minutes 28 seconds

Endgame Part 3 - A History of the Use of Eugenics by the Ruling Elite
This video clip from the Alex Jones film ”Endgame” explains how members of the global Elite have historically been implementing systems of eugenics and genocidal policies by following philosophies of such individuals as Robert Thomas Malthus, who felt that the world would benefit from large portions of its human population being eliminated.

Among issues discussed is the connections between the Rockefeller family's obsession with eugenics and Adolph Hitler's implementation of the Holocaust— which was conceived in part by the influence of popular eugenics theories of the time put forth by many American individuals and organizations.
running time 42 minutes



— Pages 5 and 6 of the treaty mention global taxes and a global regulatory system run by a private board and acknowledges the need for ratifying the Koyoto Protocol. The US and Europe will bear the brunt of making the cuts in CO2 in order to move industrial production to the third world— which will actaully result in boosting greenhouse gasses due to the fact that the countries which the industry will move to will not be binded by the same emission standards. The globalists are only interested in the tax revenue and control that is generated, and it is often posed that the treaty will ”help” the third world through ”taking from the rich and giving to the poor”, but the reality is that the treaty will mostly empower private banks and exploit third world countries.

— Pages 17, 18, and 19 from the document talk about how the convention agreement will be based on three basic pillars— government, ”facilitated mechanisms”, and ”financial mechanisms” which will implement various taxes in a dictatorial and not democratic manner.

— On page 22 of the document it states that the countries will agree that carbon dioxide is a danger and all carbon activity should be regulated and taxed. In the climate bill that has passed in the US House, thirty-five agencies are given essentially unlimited power related to the regulation of carbon activity.

— Page 142 lays out a decision making mechanism of ”hired scientists” working with elements elected by the ”COP” ( which is the private government arm of the United Nations ) working with ”regional experts” who will be selected, for the purpose of deciding on matters related to the science of environmental issues.

— On pages 160-164 is it described how globalist individuals and the United Nations choose what gets to be developed and what receives tax incentives. Loans don’t get backed up by taxpayer money and the carbon tax unless the organizations submit to United Nations organizations such as the ”COP.” It is shown that oil companies such as Exxon are actually very much behind the legislation, despite often being portrayed as not being so— similar to how insurance companies are actually supportive of the health care bill currently being attempted to be passed by Congress.

— The bodies of the UN are unelected organizations, they do what they want, when they want, how they want— it is a global government, and countries won’t be able to get out of the agreement unless all of the other countries agree— which would essentially guarantee that countries such as the United States would be forced to stay in such an agreement.

— The treaty says that the countries will agree that Carbon Dioxide is dangerous, and that climate change is always a bad thing— despite much evidence to the contrary. Climate change is becoming like a religion and it’s effects are often extremely exaggerated by media and government groups.

— Climate change is listed as being a ”burden to development,” but in fact the real agenda is actually about ”deindustrialization”— as is evidenced in documents by globalist organizations such as the United Nations. Examples are mentioned such as how the UN would determine how much water can be used in each nation— it is a power grab over many key environmental aspects the planet, and it is run by private non-elected UN groups.

— On page 171 it is explained that private banks will promote joint ventures to accelerate development, and only certain select corporate groups will be able to get the business because it is given to them by the UN Panel, which will give control over what infrastructure can be implemented and what infrastructure cannot be implemented. All of the signatories must vote unaminously to let any one party out of the agreement or to amend it— which then essentially gives total dictatorial power to the private UN body.

— On page 35, the document explains that even emergency response measures by countries using local, national, and international resources will be effected. Climate change issues are specified to be infused into essentially every law, making the issue as if it is a religion. The covention mentions that nation-states will have to pass accompanying laws to line up with the treaty’s laws, and Congress has already passed draconian rules in the US House which match up with the treaty. Agendas are mentioned such as removing ”barriers” such as national sovereignty and state and local laws, and using taxation for forcing compliance with their regulations.

— Societal issues are even mentioned such as strategies of making use of sex-based socioeconomic data for involving woman as ”active participants” presumably to attempt to turn climate change into a ”battle of the sexes” type of issue.



Recent Distortions in the Media Concerning Global Warming

  view individual page  |   view in popup windowRunning Time: 1 minutes, 10 seconds  

by Brendan O'Neil
The Australian

IF you don't reduce your carbon footprint, then puppies will drown and bunny rabbits will die. And a terrifying, jagged-toothed monster with crazy hooked hands will descend from the clouds to eat you up.

Believe it or not, that is the message being delivered by the British government to children, in a L6 million ($10.7m) advertising campaign designed to scare the next generation witless about the alleged horrors of global warming.

Taking environmentalist propaganda to a new low, the TV ad shows a father reading a nightmarish bedtime story to his perturbed-looking young daughter.

He tells her of a land where the "weather is very, very strange". There are "awful heatwaves" and "terrible storms and floods". A cartoon bunny is shown crying as it starves on the dried, cracked earth, while elsewhere a puppy drowns in floodwaters.

Above it all, a sooty, blackened monster - CO2 made hideous flesh - surveys the horrors with a grotesque grin on its face.

And just in case the little girl, and the millions of children that the TV ad is aimed at, thinks this is merely a twisted fairytale, her father makes clear that it is reality.

It is the "horrible consequence", he says, of human beings using too much CO2, much of which comes from "everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars".

In short? Children who live in warm houses and who get lifts to school or football practice should feel guilty, because their evil antics are causing dogs to die and cute rabbits to go hungry.


View the entire article here ..





Extreme Population Reduction Agendas Often Associated With Global Warming Issues

An Australian ABC website called ”The Planet Slayer Greenhouse Calculator,” teaches children that they must die to save the earth.

— Global warming issues are used as an excuse to forward extreme population reduction agendas, despite the fact that populations are already falling in developed countries of the world. View a TimesOnline article explaining that an advisor to Gordon Brown is urging that the population of the UK must fall by half in order to save the environment.

— Some organizations are perpetuating ”Malthusian” ideas that ”people need to die to save the Earth.” An Australian ABC website called ”The Planet Slayer Greenhouse Calculator,” teaches children that they must die to save the earth.

— It is often taught by environmental organizations and the media that ”babies are bad for the earth,” and the Obama Science Czar John P. Holdren had published books calling for extreme population reduction measures including forced abortions and drugging the water supply of unknowing citizens. The ”pro-death” propaganda is so pervasive that many have been made to feel that it is their ”obligation” to die in order to save the environment.




— A private banking cartel run by Goldman Sacs, J.P. Morgan, and the Bank of England openly finance aspects created by the treaty, and they will decide on such issues as the allocation of resources and tax revenue and if individuals can own a business or a factory.

— On page 43 it is described how loans will be provided to developing countries with interest if those countries get rid of certain other industries. It describes how only ”first world” nations would have to pay a particular carbon tax which would force increasing amounts of industry to the thrid world where they do not have those restrictions— which would further de-industrialize countries such as the United States. In the 1970’s, documents and statements by key organizations and individuals such as David Rockefeller laid out theoretical strategies of carbon taxes being used to make sure that no nation state could be entirely self-sufficient.

— On page 64, it is explained how global regulators will make decisions, and how they will impose increasingly bigger taxes in order to force compliance from businesses, and these global regulators will be a part of a select corrupt ”good ole’ boy” network.

— On page 83, ”cap and trade schemes” and ”carbon taxes” are described— where unelected groups will make key decisions for the countries and it will be nearly impossible for countries to escape those decisions. Third world countries are being told that they will become wealthy from the deal, however it is the same banks that have been exploiting those countries for decades that are making those false claims to them.

— Page 134 of the treaty describes taxes and regulations on products and services including methods of travel, stating that air travel should be ”rationed,” and media reports are calling for England and other countries to be passing laws that individuals need to get certification for ”essential travel” only. Also legislation is being attempted to be passed which attaches restrictions on flying with restrictions on owning firearms, in a program called ”No fly, no buy.”

— The US House has already passed the conforming legislation to this treaty, and they did not let the public or the Congress see much of the legislation before a vote was forced on it.

— Essentially every aspect of people’s lives will be taxed, and ”rationing cards” could even be introduced in the near future.

— Page 160 describes a mechanism where Globalist organizations get tax exemptions for patents that others would not— another example of a controlled and unfair market.

— Page 173 describes aspects of the ”carbon market” which Al Gore owns a large share of. Private banks will take the tax money and then loan it out. ”Traders” of bonds will not need to pay taxes, and a select few will make trillions of dollars.

— Many selective taxes will be levied on essentially everything that can be purchased, and consumers will be the ones who will bear the brunt of expense— many wealthy lobbyist corporations will be exempt from paying those taxes. Taxes have also been proposed for having more than one child and for having pets.

— Even the UN’s own ”cooked books” currently say that only 3% of the increase in CO2 is man-made. Humans exhale CO2 and plants breathe it, but nonetheless CO2 is often falsely portrayed in the media as being a ”dangerous toxic pollutant.”

— The 1996 United Nations Biological Diversity Assessment states a goal of an 80% reduction in the population of the world and a return to a feudalistic type of society. See the above section Video Clips from the Documentary Film Endgame.

— Media outlets have been trying to discredit Alex Jones, and the media personality Glenn Beck has been spreading disinformation by often appearing to have political views that are aligned with truthfulness but then exploiting the trust he develops by being dishonest about other important issues such as the existence of Global Government. Media outlets often attempt to deny that global government exists when the issue is being criticized.

— If the treaty is passed, heavy new taxes would be implemented at every level of government— from the local level all the way up to the international level, due to the fact that revenue is shared at each level in a way which makes the application of the taxes very appealing to those involved in each of the government bodies. The new taxes would end up essentially bringing even local communities under the control of an unelected global government, and it would all be implemented due to false fears created through phony environmentalism.









Alex Jones Speaks with Environmental Scientist Michael Coffman, October 2008


View audio page  >>
 
View audio page >>
recorded October 20, 2008, running time 45 minutes 13 seconds

open in popup window   |   listen with media player
In this interview, environmental scientist and globalism expert Dr. Michael Coffman explains issues concerning the upcoming Barack Obama administration, including long term agendas of globalist bankers being implemented through treaties which exploit the public’s concerns about issues such as the environment. This interview was recorded in October of 2008.

Dr. Kaufman has a Ph.D. in forest ecology, is the Chief Executive Officer of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., and is the creator of the documentary video ”Global Warming or Global Governance?”

Coffman has been influential in exposing deceptive agendas of globalist organizations such as the United Nations, and was instrumental in stopping the 1994 ”Biological Diversity Assessment” bill which was shown to be actually meant as a tool for compartmentalizing and isolating human populations of the United States under a false guise of environmental reform. Coffman is also a key contributor of interviews for the Alex Jones film ”Endgame.”

Following is a description of issues spoken about in this interview:

Coffman is surprised by the amount of deception that Globalists have been able to accomplish concerning their true agendas of international consolidation toward a one world government run by private bankers, and thinks that Obama is a master of sidetracking potential voters from the true globalist agendas which will be implemented. He explains that it is important to look back into history about forty or fifty years to see the first elements of what the globalists are trying to implement, including the creation of the IMF ( International Monetary Fund ) and the World Bank.

Coffman also mentions that it is important to look back to the activities of Secretary General Kofi Annan in the 1990s, who essentially established the United Nations as the World Government through ”Track Two” documents which define a process through which the UN will be consolidating power using international treaties in which structures are laid out in order to take control of the nations of the world. Such treaties include the Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Desertification, and many others which are designed to create an interlocking network of legal mechanisms by which the United Nations will control the world.

Coffman explains that in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, documents had been introduced which redefined the financial structure of the world. In a 2002 meeting on economics and development in Monterey, Mexico, a series of goals were laid out that are currently in the process of being implemented— creating a financial structure headquartered and run out of the United Nations and controlled by private global banks who are kept essentially invisible to the citizens of the world. He explains that the Bank of International Settlements which is headquartered in Basil, Switzerland, will have power to control the economies of every nation of the world, and how there is plan to consolidate the number of world currencies down to only two or possibly three, while also consolidating nations to divide the world into only a few economic regions.

Alex Jones mentions that such agendas are being described with such terms such as ”harmonization,” and are being implemented with treaties that appear local in scope but are actually global. Coffman mentions that despite the North American Union being labeled as a ”dead” agenda due to too much public exposure, 8 Billion dollars was just allocated to secure the southern border of Mexico rather than it’s northern border that it shares with the United States. Also mentioned is how the growing North American Union is in the process of being merged with aspects of the European Union, such as with banking, social, and environmental agreements.

Coffman mentions that the IMF is likely to be reformulated into a central world bank, similar to how the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. He explains that such changes which are precipitated by the recent economic collapse are likely to occur abruptly and have been predicted to happen by many for the past decade at least.

Alex Jones mentions the fact that SPP ( Security and Prosperity Partnership ) documents in 2005 made reference to making use of environmental, economic, and terror crisis as a pretext for furthering consolidation objectives in order to create a North American Union. Coffman comments on how many Americans are preparing to vote for Democrats thinking they will receive ”change,” but will instead empower the people most responsible for creating the recent economic collapse, as well as many other damaging agendas including deceptive legislation under the guise of ”Environmental Reform.”

Coffman comments on how what is happening now is a ”controlled collapse” which is designed to occur slowly in stages, in order not to alarm the citizenry of the world about the severity of changes that are taking place.

Coffman comments on the situation with Polar Bears being deceptively listed as threatened for political reasons, despite no credible scientific evidence existing to back up those claims. [ Editor’s note— U.S. Government studies showing Polar Bears being endangered due to the effects of global warming have been shown to be unscientific in 2008 Congressional hearings. ]

Coffman talks about a popular trend of a shift toward religious beliefs known as ”Panthiesm,” being the worship of nature over humanity. He explains that many who subscribe to this view have an agenda of drastically reducing the world’s population to between only one to two billion people, as opposed to the seven billion which exist now. He also explains how many are fanatical about this view, in particular among the global elite such as members of the Rockefeller family who are often behind major environmental legislation which is often shown to be ultimately destructive for the environment. Alex Jones further explains how such legislation is often not at all actually about the environment, but rather an ”anti-human blood lust.”

Coffman further talks about the Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on Climate Change being designed to stop the progress of humanity and bring it back to a pre-Columbian type of feudal system, where humans would have little impact on the earth. He explains how in 1994 he introduced a map to the U.S. Senate floor showing what the Convention on Biological diversity was actually intended to do, and it literally sent the Senate into shock, prompting Senator Mitchell who was the majority leader at the time to pull the treaty off of the calendar before it could even be voted on because it was so unacceptable.

Alex Jones talks about issues with a University of Texas professor at named Eric Pianka, who openly teaches that a large portion of the world’s human population should be killed off from such diseases as Ebola, and Alex mentions that some who learn from and appreciate his philosophies are employed by the biological and weapons industries.

Coffman talks about the environmental movement at it’s core being Nihilistic, believing that humans are the cause of all of the world’s problems and therefore the only solution being the elimination of humans. He mentions how in public documents it is strategized that up to 80% of the human population should be eliminated, with a few ruling elite controlling the rest who exist to serve those elite as ”support staff” and ”serfs.” Alex Jones mentions this being the reason why the United States has been ”de-industrialized” giving the fiat banking system absolute control. Coffman mentions that private properly rights and self sufficiency are the most important foundational structure for our freedoms.

Coffman talks about the establishment of the Adirondack Park Agency in upstate New York in 1972, which essentially took control of the lives of the people who live in that area. He talks about how new development in the area has been halted and some people have had to tear their houses down due to not conforming to the whims of the agency, which he says is a microcosm of what we can expect in the future. Alex Jones mentions a case in the San Fransico area where people had been forced to move from an area which the city took over as park space, only to have city and environmental officials then move into that area and engage in such activities as riding recreational four wheelers. Coffman then mentions how it is common for ranking officials in the environmental movement to be allowed to skirt zoning laws which average citizens must wrangle with for many years before being allowed to build.

Coffman and Alex Jones talk more about the ”smart growth” agenda which is used as an excuse for taking land away from citizens to be sold to members of the global elite. Coffman talks about how smart growth actually creates environmental problems and pollution despite being implemented with the excuse of saving the environment, and warns how dangerous it is for anybody’s local government to involved with, as it is actually implemented for the purpose of raising taxes and giving unelected beurocrats control over the citizen’s lives. Alex then mentions many examples of gross abuse of that agenda for corrupt purposes.

Coffman mentions that it is very important to educate young people about how they are being misled about environmental issues by the public school system, and also talks about how the political establishment is overwhelmingly pushing for global warming legislation. Coffman talks about how when the global warming issue is scrutinized that there is essentially little or no evidence that man is causing global warming, and he also mentions that storm intensity and frequency is decreased by a warming climate, as well as how the polar caps have recently been expanding.














politics
A Summary of Cynthia McKinney
A Summary of Cynthia McKinney
updated September 14, 2010
Alex Jones speaks with Len Horowitz about issues of the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak
Audio: Alex Jones speaks with Len Horowitz about issues of the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak
recorded April 29, 2009
running time 45 minutes 34 seconds
other articles
A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues
A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues
updated December 30, 2013
Tony Robbins Quotes
Tony Robbins Quotes
brainyquote.com
You Are Beautiful
You Are Beautiful
updated June 8, 2007
Copyright (C) 2017 News of Interest.TV, A/V material and quoted information are copyright of their sources.